Table 7 Distributed points in performance measurement form
Points
Investment budget 5
wages 4
three public spending 4
maintenance 4
equipment purchase 4
Internal Management
talent base staff benefits 4
professional coverage 5
transparency the number of annual accident reports 5 earliest traceable report 5 timeliness of release of report 5 Learning and
Training
international cooperation
assist investigation with foreign expert 5
international conference 5
staff training overseas training 5
Result operational capacity number of investigations 5
number of dead and missing 5 number of total loss ships 5
economic losses 5
average survey duration 5
achievement accident reduction 5
economic losses reduction 5
casualties reduction 5
The maritime accident investigation agencies compared in this article are China MSA and Japan JTSB. For a certain index, the scoring method can set the best performers to a full score of 5 points, and the worse ones are:
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑟 = 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 × 5
For example, in the “Budget” index, China’s MSA is 129.1billion higher than Japan’s JTSB’s 2.1billion, so China gets 5 points and Japan’s score is:
Japan’s score = 2.1
129.1× 5 ≈ 0.1
The above scoring methods can be applied to 11 indexes: budget, wages,
maintenance, equipment purchase, staff benefits, assistant investigation with foreign expert, international conference, overseas training, number of investigations.
In the “Three public spending” index, the less the budget spent in this item reflects that the government organizations spend less on unnecessary expenses. Japan's 10.8million is less than China's 9.8billion. Japan's performance in this index is better, and the full score is 4. China's score is:
(three public spending)China s score =10.8 × 10
9.8 × 10 × 4 ≈ 0
In the “Professional coverage” index, the technical talents covered by the Chinese MSA include: ship pollution inspector, ship safety inspector, visa inspector, seafarer examination officer, VTS officer, etc. The technical talents covered by JTSB in Japan cover: materials science, jurisprudence, JCG officer, shipbuilding, and human factor. In contrast, Japan’s JTSB talents cover a wider range of professionals. Japan’s Professional coverage index is better than Japan with a perfect score of 5 points. China’s narrow MSA talents range mainly focuses on ship navigation and pollution. The score is subjectively given by the author. 3 points.
In the” Number of annual accident reports”, Japan’s JTSB investigated 764 accidents in 2017 and released 762 accident reports, with a release rate of 99.7%. China’s MSA investigated 196 accidents in 2017 and announced 99 of them the accident report has a release rate of 50.5%. So, Japan got a perfect score of 5 in this index, and China scored:
(the number of annual accident reports)China s score =50.5%
99.7%× 5 ≈ 2.5 In the “Earliest traceable report” index, the earliest traceable accident report of Japan’s JTSB was 2007, and the earliest traceable accident report of China’s MSA was 2015. Japan’s JTSB performed better in this index with a perfect score of 5 points, and China’s score was:
(earliest traceable report) China s score =2020 − 2015
2020 − 2007× 5 ≈ 1.9
In the “Timeliness of release of report” index, the average time for Japan’s JTSB investigation to complete an accident is 0.93 months before the release of the accident report, and China’s MSA takes an average of 22.5 months. Japan’s JTSB performed better in this project with a perfect score of 5 points, and China’s score was:
(timeliness of release of report) China s score =0.93
22.5× 5 ≈ 0.2
In the “Number of dead and missing” index, Japan lost 75 people in 2018 due to a ship accident, and China caused 140 people in a ship accident in 2019. Japan performed better in this index with a perfect score of 5 points. China’s score was:
(number of dead and missing) China s score = 75
140× 5 ≈ 2.7
In the “Number of total loss ships”, Japan’s total loss of ships with more than 100 tons in 2018 was 13, and China’s total loss in 2019 was 42. Japan’s performance in this index was better than 5 points, and China’s score was:
(number of total loss ships) China s score =13
42× 5 ≈ 1.5
In the “Economic losses”, Japan’s economic losses due to ship accidents in 2018 were about 4.3 billion, and China’s economic losses caused by ship accidents in 2019 were 2.6 billion. China’s performance in this index is better, with a perfect score of 5 points. Japan’s score is:
(economic losses) China s score =2.6
4.3× 5 ≈ 3.0
In the “Average survey duration” index, according to the author's statistics, it takes 4.2 months to calculate an accident in China's MSA survey, and 5.7 months in Japan's JTSB to investigate an accident on average. China's MSA performs better in this index, with a perfect score of 5 points. The score is:
(average survey duration) Japan sscore =4.2
5.7× 5 ≈ 3.7
In the “Accident reduction”, China's general disasters of 2019 and above were reduced by 27.3% compared with 2018. Japan's ship accidents of more than 100 tons in 2018 increased by 20.9 compared with 2017. China performed better in this index with a perfect score of 5 points. Since the number of accidents in Japan increased in 2018 compared to 2017, Japan scored 0 points in this index.
In “Economic losses reduction”, China’s economic losses due to ship accidents in 2019 decreased by 42% compared with 2018, and Japan’s economic losses due to ship accidents in 2018 decreased by 74.4% compared to 2017. Japan performed better in this event with a perfect score of 5 points, while China scored:
(economic losses reduction) China s score = 42%
74.4%× 5 ≈ 2.8
In “Casualties reduction”, China’s death toll due to ship accidents in 2019 decreased by 40.9% compared to 2018, and Japan’s death toll due to ship accidents in 2018 increased by 33.9% compared to 2017. The performance was better with a perfect score of 5 points. The number of deaths and missing persons in Japan increased so the score was 0 points.
Finally, the statistical results of the scores of all indexes in China and Japan are shown in the following table:
Table 8 Scores of China and Japan in all indexes
China Japan
Investment budget 5 0.1
wages 4 0.4
three public spending 0 4
maintenance 4 0.1
equipment purchase 4 0.1
Internal Management
talent base staff benefits 4 0.1
professional coverage 3 5
transparency the number of annual accident reports 2.5 5 earliest traceable report 1.9 5 timeliness of release of report 0.2 5 Learning and
Training
international cooperation
assist investigation with foreign expert
0 5
international conference 5 0.8
staff training overseas training 0 5
Result operational capacity number of investigations 0.8 5 number of dead and missing 2.7 5
number of total loss ships 1.5 5
economic losses 5 3
average survey duration 5 3.7
achievement accident reduction 5 0
economic losses reduction 2.8 5
casualties reduction 5 0